It looks like you're using an ad blocker! I really need the income to keep this site running.
If you enjoy BlenderNation and you think it’s a valuable resource to the Blender community, please take a moment to read how you can support BlenderNation.

Interview With Sunil Chavan

Hello everybody. My name is Sunil Chavan and I am from India. I learned 3D by myself. It took me about a year to acquire the basic knowledge and techniques. Then I become a freelancer afterwards, and since the last five-six years, I am doing archviz.

I use Blender to create 3D model of the cad drawings received from the clients. The draft rendered image is mailed to the clients for their confirmation or adjustments. I modify the models, based on client feedback and comments. I then continue to work on lighting, textures and color adjustments. Repeated adjustments are often needed, before the final rendered images are accepted.

Sort of off-topic but:
why do most architect renders like this always use some weird abstract building shape or some super-clean and usually white interior with perfect crisp edges with barely any space being used (apart from a couple pieces of furniture and a picture or 2 with a dead bundle of twigs in a vase)?
I personally have never seen any buildings like this (well, I've seen videos of 1. Some science/math place for genius people) and cannot imagine anyone living in such empty, simple, clean buildings.

To me, this ruins the 'realistic' felling people try and get. But it is still impressive (most of the time)!

And why would they render something that YOU consider not weird or super clean? You do Archviz according to exactly what THE CLIENT wants. I doubt the architects would go through the trouble of designing a building/structure just to entertain him/her self to something UN-WEIRD and UN-SUPER CLEAN by your standards.

For Blender it would be the best publicity to post real good work made with Blender.
But Sunils images are suboptimal for that:
The color-tonality is weird
It looks kind of very unreal/unconvincing. I mean not that an archviz has to be real, but I miss some artistic depth, quality, mood..
There are basic mistakes (sun from the buildings in the background comes from the wrong side).
...

You better post very cool Archviz made with Blender Cycles for a better Image of Blender in Publicity:

I disagree. This is very good for Blender. It is practical use and the quality he produced is acceptable. Unless one is developing a front cover for 3D Creative or some rich architectural firm

If one has the luxury, time and a paying client to go all out on valid realism and fully artistic renders(artistic depth, quality, mood)...am sure one would have better renders.

Remember, for him, its business. Time is money. Detail & quality are a function of time. You have to be practical.

It depends on your how much you are getting(budget), what client wants, deadlines, speed, abilities, the economy/country in which you operate and so many variables if you are doing archviz as a full time source of income.

IMHO, the designs look functional. And from what I have seen from non-high-budget archviz, many do have this kind-of plain look.

He did say he iterates, accounting for client feedback. Many minds. Not a simple, linear workflow. So many things get sacrificed.

Even big budget movie studios sacrifice aspects of their intended CG/VFX/CGI when running out on the budget/time/resources.